STATE PENSION FUNDS
This table shows state pension fund support for ESG proposals in 2023, according to state data (publicly disclosed or obtained through FOIA) for directly held equities (“State Voting Avg.”) and asset manager data for indirectly held equities (“Pro-ESG Avg.” and “Anti-ESG Avg.”). For all rankings, #1 signifies either the lowest pro-ESG average or the highest anti-ESG average.
Click on a state to view additional information about its pension funds (where available), including its asset managers, proxy advisor, and voting record by issue.
2023 Proxy Voting Rankings
| State | Pro-ESG Avg. | Rank | Anti-ESG Avg. | Rank | State Voting Avg. | Rank | 2022 ESG Avg | 2022 ESG Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama*** | 49.5% | 47 | ||||||
| Alaska** | 13% | 10 | 1.3% | 30 | 35% | 18 | 30.8% | 8 |
| Arizona** | 17.4% | 24 | 1.3% | 30 | 16.3% | 8 | 43.1% | 35 |
| Arkansas* | 29.3% | 46 | 2.6% | 5 | 0% | 1 | 43.2% | 37 |
| California* | 23.3% | 37 | 2.0% | 14 | 54% | 30 | 38.8% | 21 |
| Colorado* | 23.9% | 41 | 1.3% | 30 | 36% | 20 | 48.8% | 46 |
| Connecticut* | 11.7% | 5 | 0.9% | 42 | 58% | 32 | 41.1% | 30 |
| Delaware*** | 7.2% | 1 | 0.8% | 43 | 23.3% | 2 | ||
| Florida* | 17.8% | 25 | 6.8% | 2 | 17.8% | 10 | 43.1% | 35 |
| Georgia** | 9.2% | 4 | 2.1% | 10 | 4% | 4 | 25.6% | 3 |
| Hawaii** | 20.3% | 33 | 1.6% | 23 | 92% | 38 | 37.4% | 20 |
| Idaho** | 28.8% | 45 | 1.5% | 25 | 18% | 11 | 47.7% | 44 |
| Illinois* | 16.1% | 20 | 2.2% | 7 | 35% | 18 | 37.1% | 19 |
| Indiana* | 13.8% | 12 | 1.3% | 30 | 11% | 5 | 40.2% | 27 |
| Iowa** | 22.3% | 36 | 1.7% | 19 | 65% | 33 | 39.3% | 26 |
| Kansas** | 14.3% | 14 | 1.5% | 25 | 13% | 6 | 36.2% | 16 |
| Kentucky* | 23.5% | 39 | 2.4% | 6 | 3% | 3 | 47.9% | 45 |
| Louisiana** | 18.2% | 27 | 1.3% | 30 | 49% | 28 | 36.7% | 17 |
| Maine* | 17% | 22 | 1.1% | 37 | 37% | 21 | 39.0% | 24 |
| Maryland* | 14.5% | 16 | 1.7% | 19 | 45% | 25 | 28.9% | 4 |
| Massachusetts** | 28.7% | 44 | 1.7% | 19 | 54% | 30 | 44.1% | 38 |
| Michigan*** | 18.6% | 29 | 1.1% | 37 | 34.2% | 10 | ||
| Minnesota* | 19.3% | 31 | 2.1% | 10 | 82% | 35 | 31.7% | 9 |
| Mississippi** | 32% | 47 | 2.1% | 10 | 52% | 29 | 47.1% | 42 |
| Missouri** | 25.5% | 42 | 2.0% | 14 | 45.0% | 40 | ||
| Montana | 20.7% | 34 | 1.6% | 23 | 47.3% | 43 | ||
| Nebraska* | 17% | 22 | 1.8% | 17 | 13% | 6 | 39.2% | 25 |
| Nevada** | 12.8% | 9 | 0.6% | 45 | 18% | 11 | 30.3% | 6 |
| New Hampshire** | 12.5% | 8 | 1.4% | 27 | 0% | 1 | 35.8% | 14 |
| New Jersey* | 41.0% | 48 | 5.7% | 3 | 86% | 37 | 59.6% | 49 |
| New Mexico* | 18.3% | 28 | 1.3% | 30 | 47% | 27 | 44.7% | 39 |
| New York* | 21.1% | 35 | 1.8% | 17 | 80.5% | 34 | 40.5% | 29 |
| North Carolina* | 18.9% | 30 | 2.0% | 14 | 23% | 13 | 41.9% | 31 |
| North Dakota** | 25.8% | 43 | 3.4% | 4 | 37% | 21 | 42.4% | 32 |
| Ohio* | 23.4% | 38 | 2.2% | 7 | 23% | 13 | 45.3% | 41 |
| Oklahoma** | 15.3% | 18 | 1.4% | 27 | 34% | 17 | 35.8% | 14 |
| Oregon* | 14.3% | 14 | 1.1% | 37 | 96% | 39 | 38.9% | 22 |
| Pennsylvania* | 12.3% | 7 | 1.2% | 36 | 23% | 13 | 36.7% | 17 |
| Rhode Island* | 15.5% | 19 | 1.4% | 27 | 96% | 39 | 29.8% | 5 |
| South Carolina | 8.6% | 3 | 0.6% | 45 | 34.7% | 12 | ||
| South Dakota*** | 14.8% | 17 | 2.1% | 10 | 19.4% | 1 | ||
| Tennessee | 23.8% | 40 | 0.4% | 48 | 56.6% | 48 | ||
| Texas* | 20.2% | 32 | 1.7% | 19 | 17% | 9 | 43.0% | 34 |
| Utah*** | 7.9% | 2 | 0.6% | 45 | 30.3% | 6 | ||
| Vermont* | 13.1% | 11 | 1% | 40 | 85% | 36 | 35.4% | 13 |
| Virginia** | 17.8% | 25 | 2.2% | 7 | 45% | 25 | 42.6% | 33 |
| Washington* | 11.8% | 6 | 0.8% | 43 | 43% | 24 | 40.2% | 27 |
| West Virginia | 16.6% | 21 | 1% | 40 | 38.9% | 22 | ||
| Wisconsin* | 84.3% | 49 | 15% | 1 | 42% | 23 | 59.6% | 49 |
| Wyoming** | 13.8% | 12 | 0% | 49 | 30% | 16 | 34.4% | 11 |
*State publicly discloses its proxy voting record for securities that it directly owns through its pension fund portfolio. States also own shares indirectly via index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, etc.
** State does not publicly discloses its proxy voting record for securities that it directly owns through its pension fund portfolio, but it did comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for this information.
*** State does not publicly discloses its proxy voting record for securities that it directly owns through its pension fund portfolio and claimed exemption from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for this information. The 1792 Exchange encourages these states to publish their proxy voting records instead of keeping its pensioners in the dark about how the state votes on ESG issues with their money.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this report, ‘Proxy Voting,’ is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Click here for the full disclaimer.